Show STATEMENT OF FACTS Text of the Agreement Mado by the Attorneys Mr Putnam made a brief opening statement and then seating himself on the witness stand read the agreed statement of facts as follows between the In this cause it Is agreed State and the defendant that the following fol-lowing are the facts to be received and considered as such by the jury In arriving ar-riving at a verdict In this case I That the defendant B 11 Roberts has a legal wife one Sarah Louisa Roberts residing at Centerville Davis county Utah who has been recognized and held out by him as his wife for more than fifteen years last passed and by whom he has a number o children ond dren that the person named In the information in-formation as Margaret Shlpp Roberts formaton slclan who resides In Salt Lake City Salt Lake county Utah and has lived in Salt Lake City for more than lved years last passed that she has resided at No 75 North State street Salt Lake City since prlorto the 12th lav of April 1S37 that prior to sometime some-time In the year 1897 there waif a sign tme upon the front of her house plainly visible UPOI 1 from the street Dr Margaret C Shlpp that sometime In the year ISO the sign was changed to read Dr Margaret C Roberts that sometime in the summer of 1S97 Dr Luella C Miles 0 lady physician of Salt Lake City was calling upon Dr Margaret Shlpp Roberts at her hou e 75 North State street that the two ladies were in the parlor of the house in conversation conversa-tion when the defendant came Into the room and Dr Roberts then introduced him to Dr Miles as Mr Roberts that the parlor is I at the front of the house on the right side of thefront door that prior to Mr Robertas coming In Dr Miles heard no one within the house go to the front door to open It and no one ushered defendant into the parlor INTRODUCED AS MY WIFE That in September 1S07 Rov S E WIshanl a minister of the Presbyterian Presbyte-rian church and superintendent of tho home missionary work of that church for the synod of Utah who had known defendant for a number of yours prior tcP that time was Introduced by defendant de-fendant lme railroad train at Manti Ulah lo Dr Margaret Shlpp Roberts Cither as Mrs Roberta or as my wife af which language was used the witness Is not able definitely to state Dr Wislmrd was not at that time acquainted ac-quainted with the lady but his seen wih her Hince and is positive that she In Dr Margaret Shipp Roberts that In December 1SDO Dr Wlshard called upon this lady at her residence 73 North State street Salt Lake City and wa shown Into the parlor of the houne thai In thiN parlor there was a largo picture of Mr Roberts tho defendant two or three feet long and of proportionate propor-tionate width hanging on the walL There was alsoa amnll picture of di fondant in a little frame on I tablo in the same room LETCIIERS EXPERIENCE That In the latter part of Jpne 1SD8 Mr J R Letchcr a resident l of Salt Lake City and clerk of the United I States Circuit and District courts for Utah had occasion to see defendant I B H Roberts at the request of some persons at Muntl Utah to see It he would deliver an oration at the Fourth f of July celebration at Mantl Utah that Mr Lotcher called n defendants Templeton building and olllce In time lemplcton bulalng was directed to tho residence of Dr Margaret Shlpp Roberts 75 North State nrSart Upon reaching the house the door was opened by Dr Margaret Shlpp Roberts upon Mr Lctchcrs Inquiring I In-quiring l for defendant she uohercd him Continued on pare SJ I ROBERTS JURY DIVIDED I Continued from pnyc J Into the second room on the left ot thc I I hall where Mr Lctehcr found Mr I Roberts the defendant reclining in bed eating This was about noon Dr Margaret Shipp Robfrls remained In I the room and defendant waving his hand toward her said You know Mrs Dr Roberts Mr Lclcher Both Mr LctchiT and the lady acknowledged the Introduction with a bow she I handed him a chair and left the room Mr Lctchor then expressed to defendant I de-fendant Ills surprise at finding him In bed and defendant said that he had Just undergone an operation for I hemorrhoids and was laying up for repairs re-pairs under direction of his physician After further conversation with de 1 fen < ant concerning Mr Tclchers errand er-rand Mr Letcher left the house AGAIN INTRODUCED AS HIS WIFK I Mrs Maria McDou < all a married lady I residing at I3G Third East street Salt Lake City had been personally acquainted ac-quainted with Dr Margaret Shipp Rob j urts for a number of years prior to 1S9S 1 and at that time knew the defendant B H Roberts by sight On July 2L 1SOS she took the Oregon Short Line train from Salt Lake City on a Journey I to Butte Mont and occupied u seat In the chair car After she got Into the car Dr Roberts and the defendant I came In and occupied seats on her right and traveled as far as Pocatello Idu I At Ogden the train stopped for about I half an hour and during that time I airs McDougall heard defendant Inlro 1 duic Dr Roberts once as his wife and I repeatedly as Sister Roberts These Introductions occurred on hoard of the train to gentlemen cominG In and I speaking to them while It was stopped at the Ogden depot The train loft Salt I Lake City at SJ5 p m reached Ogden uboout an hour later and reached Pocatello I Po-catello about 2 oclock In the morning I Defendant and Dr Roberts traveled from Salt Lake City to Pocatello together 1 to-gether in the same chair car with Mrs McDougall I KNOWN AS MRS 1 ROBERTS That on tho occasion o a large gathering at Saltair Beach during the summer of 1S9S defendant and Dr Margaret Shlpp i Roberts were seen together walking around the building and conversing together without any other companions that the defendant has been seen on a number of occasions I during the years 1S07 and 1S9S going In and out of the house of Dr Margaret Shipp Roberts 7G North State street Salt Lake City and In the neighborhood neighbor-hood 0 that house that during this tme the sign Dr Margaret C Roberts Rob-erts above mentioned was on the house In plain sight that during the time stated In the Information In this case to wit from the 1st of January 1S97 to the 1st day of July isno DI Margaret Shlpp Roberts has been known by that lame among her friends neighbors and acquaintances and has been reputed among them to be the wife of the defendant B H Roberts CONFESSED TO THREE FAMILIES j I That In tho latter part of March or early in April 1SDC defendant Roberts told B A McDanlel in conversation between be-tween them that he defendant t had three families that In September 1S9S a short time prldr to the Democratic State convention which nominated defendant j de-fendant for Coijgioss defendant and McDanlel had an extended conversation with reference to the prospect of defendants de-fendants being nominated for Congress and tho fact that It was reported that defendant was living and cohabiting with his plural wives In this conversation conver-sation Mr McDanlel slated to defendant defend-ant In substance this Now we might as well talk this matter over I plainly I do not care to go into your domestic relations but you have heard I these rumors that you are living with your plural wives and raising children by them Now it Is Just aa well that we understand this Mr MoDanlel also stated to defendant that he had been urged to oppose defendant in the Herald on the ground that ho was living In polygamy and that ho had children born to him by his plural wives Mr I McDanicl said to defendant You have heard these rumors of jourse I and defendant said that was true and stated 1 cannot deny that 1 will nut and further said There will be no occasion to make that an issue In this campaign That he thought the American Ameri-can people were generous hearted and would take the view that The fountain foun-tain of the supposed evil having been dried up that Is plural marriages has ng been prohibited by the church there being no more they would simply say The streams should be allowed to run their course and end with him or that In substance Mr McDanlel further said to defendant that in case ho was nominated by the convention the Herald could not de fend him If charges were made against I him on the ground that he was a polygamist or living In polygamous relations re-lations with his wives Defendant said that he did not desire that that hn could make his own defense in that regard rearCOULD COULD NOT DENY CHARGE During this conversation in regard to defendants relations with his wives I defendant said In substance I am not guilty of the crlmo of polygamy and that Is the charge that has been made against me I am not guilty of that crime simply because the crime of polygamy has been defined by the Supreme Su-preme court of the United Slates to be the taking of a wife while there Is a legal wlte living Tho act of taking the wife Is the crime 01 polygamy The relation 1 am sustaining to my families has been dcilncd by the I Supreme court of the United States as unlawful cohabitation co-habitation and therefore I am not guilty of the crime of polygamy Defendant also stated that In his opinion such relations ua he had sustained to his plural l wives In places where the Ed I munds law was operative were mao centrulat ions Defendant did not admit that his relations were unlawful lie stated that he could not deny the charges nor would not at any time and that ho did not consider his relations unlawful Defendant said that the re lallon ha sustained If a crime at all had been defined by the Supreme court of the United States as unlawful co habitation and when asked whether he KUHtaincd that relation to his plural wives he said that he would not deny the charge with reference to living with his wives and having children born to him Defendant also said that he never had denied these charges never would deny them but that ho could make an answer that would be satisfactory to every one That on Republican day In the month nf July or August 1S9D defendant and Dr Margaret Shlpp Robert were seen In company together during a portion of the afternoon and evening at Salt air beach without other companions I walking conversing eating and drink Ing together WENT DIRECT TO DR ROBERTSS That on Saturday February 3 1000 defendant arrived In Salt Lake City from Washington where he had been I since tha previous October He reached this city about 310 p I m of that day by 1 train Late In the afternoon he j went to Farrlngtons livery stable on South Torapjo strict between Main and I West Temple I and there procured a II horse and buggy and drove west on I South Temple street A few minutes I later he drove un io 75 North State I street the home of Dr Margaret Shlpp Robert tied tho homo and went In j After remaining In the house about twenty mlnulQH ho h came out and drove I away In the direction of Contervllle I I MOTIONS MY MOYLE When Mr Putnam left the stand after reading the agreed statement of fact Attorney fOe mldres flcd tho teen and Mid It had been admitted that the dcfcndwnt hud cohabited with hlf hegal l I wife Sarah Louisa Roberts in Hi county of Day that It tits I Ur0 nlmitl < l Hint thrro WI no t vl 1 dence of cohabiting with that lady In the county of Sail Lake Therefore counsel argued that it was not within the jurisdiction of the court to decide the case To this argument Mr Putnam replied re-plied that the law distinctly provided for such cases that where part of a crime was committed In one county and part In another the case might bo tried In either county Counsel cited the ease ot John Smith the man who sent the Infernal machine to Judge I Powers and said the court had decided that as part of the offense was committed I com-mitted In Salt Lake county It could properly bo tried here Mr Moyle argued the point still fur thor and In the course of his remarks used the following language There Is no charge here of an offense committed com-mitted In two counties Therefore evidence I evi-dence of such a charge would not be admlssable It la I a question whether a man under the Constitution of Utah who lives with different women In two counties It Is a question whether ho could bo convicted of unlawful cohabitation cohabi-tation The objection made by Mr Moyle was overruled by the COUlt whereupon Mr I Moyle moved that all the evidence re i I latlng to cohabitation with Sarah Louisa Roberts In Davis county be stricken out for the reason that It was Immaterial but this motion also was I overruled Mr Moyle came to his feet again with a motion that the court Instruct the Jury to return u verdict of not guilty Overruled said the court PUTNAMS ADDRESS TO THE JURY Mr Putnam then made his argument argu-ment to the Jury occupying twenty I minutes Ho said that unlawful cohabitation coha-bitation was a crime against social order or-der against public morality and the Legislature had therefore made it pun Ishnble The prosecuting attorney then reviewed step by step the agreed statement state-ment of facts and said the Jury must I i find by the evidence before them whether or not the defendant In the J case was guilty of unlawful cohabitation cohabi-tation with Dr Margaret C Shipp MOYLE REVIEWS THE EVIDENCE Attorney Moyle then addressed the Jury and beginnIng defined the word cohabitation paying It meant to live together to associate together as husband hus-band and wife and said It could not be proven by tho fact that the parties were seen together at rare Intervals Ho sold further that It I had not been proven that there was any marriage between the defendant and said Margaret Mar-garet C Shlpp although It had been proven that she changed the name on the sign over her office Counsel argued that the only evidence offered that defendant de-fendant had lived with Dr Roberts In 1S97 was that given by Dr Miles As to Dr WIshards statcment Mr Moyle said that Inasmuch as the doctor was not positive as to whether Mr Roberts Rob-erts Introduced Dr Roberts as Mrs Roberts or my wife 1 the jury should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt RESTORING HIM TO HEALTH Counsel considered the evidence of Mr Letehcr the most substantial In the entire case and yet ho Insisted that I even that evidence did not tend to show I that defendant was living with Dr Roberts but rather that he was being treated by her as a physician for an I I ailment The evidence of Mis Mc I Dougall that defendant and Dr Roberts Rob-erts went to Pocatello together counsel coun-sel said was not looked upon as of any weight inasmuch as It did not ploe that they were living together its husband and wife As to the evidence of Mr McDanlel he said It did not slate what women were meant when Mr Roberts admitted I that ho was living in polygamy and that his wives were bearing him children chil-dren that It could not have related to Dr Shlpp Inasmuch as the evidence I went to show that she had never borne I him any children Ho Insisted that though every possible agency had been put to worlc to find evidence against I the defendant the evidence absolutely failed to prove that defendant had cohabited with Dr Margaret C Shipp In closing Mr Moyle said In pait I APPEAL FOR SYMPATHY And I ask you If under your conscience con-science understanglnd as you do tho conditions as they existed here and understanding the relationships that exist between men and women because of their religious faith I ask you if a man could be asked to do more than this defendant has done T say that the greatest opponent the most bitter anilMormon that ever walked the earth will not say that any man should be convicted who has come so near absolutely separating himself from a woman that ho may have married under un-der circumstances to them Just as racred as It Is possible for the relationship rela-tionship of man and wife to be Is it possible that because a man sustains the relationship of husband to a plural or polygamous wife that he must never darken her door that he may never go within the portals of her home and see her that ht cannot even be seen walking up and down the pavilion ot Saltair with her QUESTION OF HEART I any that the Individual who would go so far to maintain that proposition Is absolutely dovold of heart that ho hah not a particle of the milk of human kindness In his soul If he has a soul I The law should be main tali ed Its majesty ma-jesty and greatness should be understood I under-stood and appreciated by the people I and no one should feel that ho la greater than the law or that he can I Ignore it and It I Is your solemn und I sworn duty to sow that the majesty of the law Is maintained bill juries arc supposed to look upon the acts of mankind man-kind with somo degree of knowledge l of mankind that men who sit un juries are supposed to know something I of their fellowmen the relationships which they hear to each other and If thero Is I IL leerniina ion on the part of a person to Ignore and disobey Mm law If there is a wicked Intent In the mind or heart of an Individual his acts are to he construed In the light of that fact If you convict this defendant de-fendant of that offense what under thu sun Is It possible that a man can cs capo toni who has over borne that relationship unless lie has a heart of stone PUTNAMS CLOSING ADDRESS InhlH closing argument Mr Putnam Put-nam said that If as counsel for the defense had inferred time defendant and Dr Roberts had contracted the relation re-lation of husband and wife a longtime long-time ago and yet waited until 1S37 to publish It to th2 world they thereby there-by gave the Impression that there asa as-a deslro to openly and flagrantly say to the world that lie relation existed In violation of law and they wished to publish It Counsel iirguffd further that defendant defend-ant had on several occasions Introduced Dr Roberts as his wife that this would not have been done had the lady In question not been his wife and the Jury know what relations of husband hus-band and wife were and that It was their duty not only to consider the actual evidence given but they had aright a-right lo draw Inferences as to lie conduct con-duct and relations of the parties from the statements made that the rela lonuhlps which existed ns referred to In t I time evidence showed what lie relations would be at other times And Mr Putnam dosed his argument with the following words Now I ask you to consider this case In the light of the evidence without with-out prejudice without feeling without passion because It Is for Utah Juries to say now whether the laws of Utah are to bo kept or whether they arc to be violated and for Utah Juries to say whether the law that punishes Mils particular kind of mi offense h lo bon bo-n dead letter or whether as you gentlemen gen-tlemen told rue von hint no prejudice tgaint tint kind of a law arid you would enforce It Just as quickly as you would the law In any other kind of a case SUBMITTED TO THE JURY Judge Norrell then delivered the usual charge and the Jury retired at 150 in the afternoon under the care of Bailiff I Naylor The court walled Ian I-an hour for them to come in but they made no sign and Judge Norrell left leaving Instructions that If they agreed by 030 he was to be sent for to re I reive the verdict They had not agreed by that hour and were locked up for the night |